- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2042 WP No. 34306 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 34306 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT.T.PRASHANTHI VALLEPU, WIFE OF SRI. V.GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.123, 2ND CROSS, GREEN AVENUE LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI, WARD NO.54, BENGALURU-560067. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOKANATHA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BENGALURU EAST, RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BENGALURU EAST, HOODI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560048. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2042 WP No. 34306 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.), E-7, SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, DOORAVANI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560016. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VAIBHAV MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. PADMA S.UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Lokanatha K., counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Padma S. Uttur, counsel for respondent No 4, appeared in person and Sri. Vaibhav Malimath, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through video conferencing. 2. The writ petition is filed to quash the notice dated 03.10.2025 issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-G, and the intimation letter dated 16.05.2024 vide Annexure-E and the communication dated 24.09.2025 vide Annexure-F. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2042 WP No. 34306 of 2025 3. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of a house bearing No.123, situated at Kodigehalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, presently comes within the limits of Greater Bengaluru Authority. The petitioner purchased the same under a registered sale deed in 2018. After the purchase, the Khata has been transferred in the name of the petitioner; the E-Khata has been issued and up-to-date tax has been paid by the petitioner. The fourth respondent supplied power connection to the entire building vide R.R.No.7EEHK66771 and fixed separate meters to each floor, agreeing to supply 2KW of electricity power. 4. Alleging that the petitioner violated the sanctioned plan and constructed the house, the office of the Greater Bengaluru Authority issued a communication to the fourth respondent to disconnect the power supply. Based on the communication, the fourth respondent issued a notice on October 3, 2025, to the petitioner for the disconnection of the power supply. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court seeking appropriate relief. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2042 WP No. 34306 of 2025 5. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 6. The core issue is the justifiability of the fourth respondent's action in issuing a notice for the disconnection of the power supply. Electricity is a fundamental essential service, protected under law, and its disconnection is impermissible without a cogent, lawful reason, even for reasons like maintenance dues or disputes. The fourth respondent's reliance on the communication and the resulting notice for the disconnection of an essential service is unjustifiable. In other words, the fourth respondent's reliance on the communication and the act of issuing a notice for the disconnection of a critical service is untenable; consequently, the notice is liable to be quashed. The respondents 1 to 3 may, at their discretion, pursue legal recourse for the alleged violation of the sanctioned plan. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2042 WP No. 34306 of 2025 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 Vide Annexure-G, is hereby quashed, and the instant writ petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications and interim directions, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38